-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 326
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Overwrite k8s HTTP probes when transparent proxy is enabled. #517
Merged
Merged
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d7662f1
Overwrite k8s HTTP probes when transparent proxy is enabled.
ishustava 823463b
Code review updates
ishustava 9c4dabf
Update changelog
ishustava 38964f7
fix unit tests
ishustava f2e17c3
Merge branch 'master' into overwrite-k8s-probes
ishustava File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I know for service name and service port we would look at the first container name/port in the past, but those were also overrideable by configuration. In this case, there's no configuration to pick which container is the app container to rewrite the healthcheck. Is it alright to assume here that it should be the first container?
I think yes because we don't support multi-port services and because it's not a limiting requirement to the app dev that the first container is their main app since there isn't an order the containers will run in. But just wanted to voice it out loud in case you thought of something along these lines as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep, that's a really good point. Thanks for bringing this up!
You're right that with a port you could still choose a port from any container, but now we will always overwrite probes for the first container. Thinking about it, I think we could make it work and use the same container to overwrite probes as the container that has the port from the provided port annotation. That will probably be the most accurate, but I'll do it a separate PR. WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes I think that makes sense-- if the port annotation exists, look for the container with a port that matches the annotation, else use the first container? Separate PR totally makes sense as this PR is valuable on its own!